The IABC Code of Ethics and Blogging
Allan Jenkins has written a provocative post in which he flat-out refuses to see the need for bloggers to be bound by a single code of ethics. Read his post, read my reply, and then leave your comments here to create some discussion about this timely topic.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I’m with Allan on this one. To me, setting a code of ethics for bloggers is like setting a code of ethics for barroom banter. I have great faith that irresponsible, disingenuous, vicious liars will get theirs because good people won’t find what they say to be compelling in the long run.
As for obvious exceptions, how can one worry about codes of ethics for relatively obscure bloggers while Sean Hannity is blasting away on our radios and TVs?
April 11th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Thanks for weighing in, David. With so many voices competing for attention, irresponsibile, disingenuous, vicious liars MAY get theirs, but they also may keep an audience of like-minded people. Look at the Don Imus flap–he’s apologized, been suspended, advertisers have pulled out and protests welcome him at work–yet he will be back on the air when all is said and done.
Would a broadcaster’s code of ethics have kept him from making the derogatory statements that have led to this state of affairs? Nah, it obviously did not. The only thing that will eventually get him off the air–sans another stupid statement at the level of the last one–will be dwindling audience share, little advertiser support, and the whims of his management. When, and if, his management pulls the plug on Imus, they could point to his inability to adhere to a code of ethics; in reality, he would be dropped because his liabilities would finally outweigh his profitability.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:38 am
So you’re advocating a code of ethics as a handy ruse?
April 11th, 2007 at 7:08 am
No, I’m recognizing the validity of Allan’s point that a code of ethics, in and of itself, will not guarantee ethical behavior. For Christians and Jews, a similar example is the Ten Commandments. Those commandments have never kept people from lying, adulterous behavior, murder, etc. I don’t believe that was their intended purposes. Instead, I believe they are a barometer of righteous behavior that allows us to gauge how our behavior and thoughts measure against a higher standard than “at least I’m not as bad as THAT guy.”
April 11th, 2007 at 7:26 am
Well, I just don’t understand the instinct; and either, it appears, does the beleaguered Kathy Sierra, who has as much a reason as anyone to pine for some rules:
http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/003864.html
April 11th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Most professions, organizations, clubs, religions, etc., have some kind of guidance document. It may be a code of ethics, the 10 commandments, policy manual…whatever. The intent of the guidance usually is to help the individuals become a better communicator, employee, public servant, elected official or student.
I don’t think a code of ethics or a code of ethical behavior is a bad thing for any group of people. It’s a code, not a set of laws. It’s a code, not a weapon. It’s a code, not a ball and chain.
I have no doubt that all who have weighed in on this topic are honorable people. And, if you ARE honorable, what’s the big deal about signing up for a code of ethics?
April 11th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Yes, what IS the big deal about signing up for a code of ethics? The blog world isn’t a profession, an organization, a club or a religion. It’s people yakking.
As soon as someone sets up a code of ethics, that person or group is responsible to enforce it by his or her idea of what’s honorable.
Is that Allan Jenkins? Is it Hunter S. Thompson? Is it Tom O’Keefe? Is it you? Me?
Hell with it, I say.
P.S. I write for a major paper and have to abide by its code of ethics. (”Don’t quote close friends in stories, don’t use your reporter status to get advantages around town, accept no gift larger than a keychain,” etc.)
In my experience the limitations placed on my stories by the caution of the editors–imposed by the Giant Corporation who pays them–are FAR more restrictive than the ethics policy.
April 11th, 2007 at 8:46 am
I fall in with Allan Jenkins, Shel Holtz and others who question the value of establishing a code.
The blogosphere is a wild and wooly place inhabited by everyone and anyone.
There is the pre-teen girl blogging about the pretty pink sweater that she bought that Tiffany bought too, the little copy cat.
There is the gamer blogging about how he “killed” all those other slugs in that other loser group, haha.
There is the Jim Cramer-type blogging about stocks they like (boo-yahhhhh) and stocks they hate (may the company go down in flames).
There are family members blogging about their travels for the rest of their family and friends to “come along for the ride.”
There is the real estate agent and the mortgage broker blogging about the state of their local market and how it’s a great time to buy a home and get a loan, or terrible and it’s all Allan Greenspan’s fault.
There is the politics junkie blogging about the damned liberals/conservatives and how all the troubles of the world and soon the moon are the other side’s fault or Hillary’s/Newt’s fault.
Oh yeah, and there are us communicators, too. And we presume to set the code of conduct for all?
While I feel, as most of us do, that what Kathy Sierra is enduring is reprehensible and indefensible, there are laws that cover that conduct, and no code of ethics would have prevented those scumbags (did I just violate the code by name-calling?). And for us communicators, we have a code of ethics and yet it does not prevent the self-proclaimed Trust Barometer PR agency from creating a fictitious blog presumably from a couple of people RV’ing their way across Wal-mart’s America (didn’t they, in effect, lie to us?).
No, a code is not a law, but if there is no consequence to breaking the code, what’s the point? Aren’t the standards we’re supposedly establishing self-evident? If not, whose interpretation of the code is correct? And if there are consequences, aren’t they consequences that occur with or without the code? Imus is suspended, advertisers and guests drop out and his show either will or won’t survive, but not because he broke a communicator’s code but the unwritten code of decency.
michael clendenin
April 11th, 2007 at 11:24 am
As David Murray notes, blanket blogger codes of ethics cannot be enforced; as Michael Clendenin notes, no one code can cover all bloggers.
I believe communicators — whether they express themselves in print, on television or in blogs — are already covered by the codes of IABC, PRSA, SPJ, etc. I’ve certainly never felt my blog writings are somehow outside the IABC code (keeping in mind Desirable Roasted Coffee is my professional blog. If I had a personal one, all bets are off).
What I would like to emphasize is that, while I do not see the need for bloggers to be bound by one set of ethics, I believe each blogger would do well to consider, and publish, the ethical rules he/she intends to follow. In other words, don’t be bound by codes of ethics imposed by others; don’t impose your own code on others; but, by God, impose your own code on yourself.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Well spoken…err, blogged, Allan!
April 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
To paraphrase Jane Howard: “Call it a code, call it a rulebook, call it a conscience: Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.”
con·science, n
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent
Whatever you call it, the policing, in the end, can only come from within.
April 15th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Has IABC killed the monthly podcast?
And if so, isn’t there some sort of responsibility to explain why, in the same blog that promoted the podcast in the past?
BAK
April 16th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Brian,
You must have missed Glenda’s March 14 Cafe post about the latest podcast. Here is the link:
http://blogs.iabc.com/chair/archives/2007/03/14/jetblue/
Tom
April 16th, 2007 at 10:41 am
There seems to have been a great leap of assumption in this discussion. The assumption is that a code of ethics has to be enforceable, and that anyone who chooses not to follow it will lose out somehow.
I have not seen anyone suggesting that. Indeed, someone noted that the Ten Commandments are not exactly strictly followed.
But shucks, does the code have to be any bigger a deal than displaying the Better Business Bureau logo, or a sign that says “LEED Green building” or “I am a Democrat” or any other announcement of the house beliefs?
Case 1 should be non-controversial: surely it is OK to post on one’s own blog “I do not post content of type XYZ on this blog”
Case 2 perhaps a bit controversial: can/should one post on one’s blog something like “I moderate comments and will delete any that are (in my opinion) of type XYZ.” ?
Case 3: Jenkins seems to think there is a Case 3, in which some kind of Thought Police says “You can’t post content of type XYZ on your blog.” Well, maybe your ISP can say that, and that’s their right; if you don’t like it get your own server or find a looser ISP.
The straw man here is that if organization A writes a Code, and Joe Schmo chooses to announce that he follows it, what happens when some people think that Joe’s latest posting is not in line with the Code? Surely they will say so in their comments, and in some cases Joe will say “hmm, you’re right” and deal with it. Jenkins won’t - he’s never been wrong (grin) - but there you are.
So really the ONLY issue remaining is “What if Joe professes to follow the code and doesn’t?”
What we do NOT need is a storm of posts saying “I think Joe is a codebreaker - read THIS!” Perhaps better would be “I think Joe is a codebreaker and I am not linking to him.”
The tricky one: should I say on MY blog “some people say Joe is a codebreaker - go judge for yourself (link)” ?
This is what happened in the Kathy Sierra case. Because of the flap about it, the nasty comments got far more attention than they deserved.
Let’s look a blogger’s choices if a code is available:
(1) I’m ignoring it.
(2) I have announced that I follow it.
(2a) if some people say I have broken code, I will change my content
(2b) if a lot of people say I have broken code, I will change my content
(2c) I have deliberately broken code to discredit it, nyah, nyah.
The question is simply how many of those can you live with?
Will we go codeless just because there are some 2c’s out there?
April 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Hicks, you ought to read, or get a ten year old to read and interpret for you, before you post.
You write “Jenkins seems to think there is a Case 3, in which some kind of Thought Police says “You can’t post content of type XYZ on your blog.” Well, maybe your ISP can say that, and that’s their right; if you don’t like it get your own server or find a looser ISP.”
Where did you get that from, Hicks? The tooth fairy? Because, unless you lack basic interpretive skills, nothing I’ve written or said could lead you to associate my opinion with that obviously stupid assertion. In fact, I believe just the opposite.
You want to rethink?
April 18th, 2007 at 7:27 am
My blogging activities are covered by a code of ethics:
IABC’s.
Bloggers are not part of any group or association any more than people who post messages to discussion forums. Is there a code of ethics for conversation around water coolers and at cocktail parties?
Most bloggers will never even hear of a code of ethics, if one is established (and who, pray tell, would be the authoritative source of such a code?). Only people inclined to abide by such a code would do so, in any event.
However, if I blog something that violates IABC’s code of ethics, I am subject to the disciplinary actions of IABC’s ethics committee and board. That’s the case because I DO belong to an association. That’s about as close to a blogger’s code of ethics as we’re likely to get.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:08 am
For the record, readers, Mr. Jenkins and I have corresponded privately on this. I mentioned that my “thought police” concept came directly from his original post. Allan explained some other factors not relevant to this discussion, and I am thus withholding the reply that the above post would otherwise deserve. Shall we proceed to other meaty issues?
April 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
And, for the record, Tim and I have corresponded. I apologize for the tone of my response. While I believe Tim misinterpreted my original post, I know I misinterpreted his response.
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I think any discussion of a code of ethics needs to include an examination of why organizations adopt these codes in the first place. Although on the surface codes may seem to exist to influence people’s behavior (and indeed one cannot argue that this is not the case), the ultimate purpose of a code of ethics (i.e. code of conduct) if often to a) protect the organization from litigation (dealing in bad faith with suppliers, customers, etc.) and b) providing members, employees, etc., recourse in the case of sexual harrassment, racism and so forth). The key is that is both a and b above there are authorities and processes in place to deal with the issues at hand.
Since the practice of blogging has neither an authority or process in place, any code of ethics would be toothless — one more set of rules and regulations that can be arbitrarily comploed with or ignored. Why not just let people decide which blogs/bloggers are their cup of tea or themselves?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Even animals in the wild observe protocols, conventions of respect, and boundaries to behavior. Not one among them has ever put these in writing.
We know what it is to be respectful, ethical, courteous, and constructive. Through hindsight, we’re sometimes informed that we’ve stepped over the line due to ignorance or oversight. But through foresight, we know when we’re about to do so deliberately.
A written code implies enforcement by a third party. If this debate reveals no other truth, perhaps it’s sufficient to realize that “ethics” is the absence of arrogance and a benefit to the whole only when self-imposed by individuals.